Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
World Nutrition
Volume 5, Number 2, February 2014 Journal of the World Public Health Nutrition Association Published monthly at www.wphna.org
Carlos Monteiro, Geoffrey Cannon Centre for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition School of Public Health, University of So Paulo, Brazil Emails: carlosam@usp.br; wn.theeditor@gmail.com
Manufacturers want to evade regulations and to increase profits by making and selling reformulated added value ultra-processed products with low sugar, low fat, low salt and other health claims
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168 140
Summary
Reformulation to reduce fat or salt or sugar or to add various bioactive compounds enables manufacturers to imply or claim that ultra-processed products are healthy. They are not This 2014 position paper revises and updates the previous paper, published in WN in 2012. It is written from a global point of view. The points we make have special force in middleand low-income countries, and for impoverished populations in all countries. They also apply to high-income countries and settings, especially where dietary patterns are still food-based. Reformulation of processed food and drink products is a prime nutrition policy priority. It justifies public-private partnerships at which agreements concerning product formulation are made. Reformulation that reduces the amount of fat or sugar or salt, or that increases the amount of dietary fibre or vitamins or minerals or other bioactive compounds, will improve the nutrient profile of processed products. So it will result in healthier food supplies and dietary patterns, and help to control and prevent obesity and chronic noncommunicable diseases, as specified at the General Assembly of the United Nations. The paragraph above summarises the consistently stated view of government legislators, UN and other international agency officials, and leaders of influential organisations working in the public interest. It is also the stated view of the leading corporations that manufacture such products, and their representative, associated and supportive organisations. These continue to initiate, fund, resource, and set agenda for public-private partnerships designed to shape international food and nutrition policies. It seems that practically all stakeholders agree that product reformulation will improve public health. Our position, recently summarised in a Lancet commentary of which one of us is a coauthor, is that this view is wrong. Product reformulation has two main functions. One is as a type of new product development with the bonus of being able to make health claims and sometimes charge premium prices. Two is as a damage limitation exercise, a distraction from essential statutory measures that will effectively improve industrialised food supplies, protect traditional food systems, and create a fair market for the food industry as a whole, including family and independent farmers, retailers and caterers, as well as manufacturers. The net eventual effect of product reformulation, when this enables manufacturers to imply or claim health benefits, will most of all in the global South lead to deeper penetration and greater consumption of intrinsically unhealthy ready-to-consume ultra-processed products, Heavily promoted, these displace freshly prepared dishes and meals and eventually destroying food systems and cultures based on freshly prepared meals. Product reformulation is not part of the public health solution. It already is part of the problem.
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
141
Plenty of fatty or sugary products are already reformulated to contain less or even no fat or sugar (above) and imply or make health claims. One question is, what are the replacement ingredients? Reformulation of food products is a topic that needs to be addressed regularly. This 2014 position paper revises and updates the previous paper, published in WN in 2012. Since then the issue of food product reformulation has become more urgent and important. More and more public bodies, including UN agencies and national governments, see reformulation as a powerful way to improve dietary patterns and protect against obesity and related diseases. Consortia of nutritionists are devising systems of nutrient profiling designed to promote reformulation. Action on Sugar, launched in the UK in January this year, has as the first and foremost goal, reformulation to reduce sugar in ultra-processed products. Also, and significant, manufacturers evidently welcome reformulation, especially when this is according to their own rules and when the reformulated products are labelled with implied or explicit health claims and endorsements from apparently independent sources, which add commercial value. This new 2014 position paper takes these and other developments into account.
142
previous UK government in which reformulation has been one component (3-5). We think that the inference of benefit here for cardiovascular disease, but not for obesity, is reasonable. But whether really substantial changes in product composition or in public health are actually happening, and whether there is any increase in consumption of healthy unprocessed and minimally processed foods, which do not need reformulation, are other matters.
143
reformulated products to be advertised as positively healthy foods, and thus yet more attractive than whole or minimally processed foods, and often sold at increased premium prices. Within the global North, especially in regions like Southern Europe and the Middle East whose food supplies are not yet saturated with ultra-processed products, common sense suggests that the net effect will be overall increased purchase and consumption of these products, most with implicit or explicit health claims. In the global South, the prospect is disastrous. The penetration of ultra-processed products into countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa and other countries of the global South whose dietary patterns are food based, already at the rate of doubledigit (10 per cent or more) annual growth (13,14). Reformulated with health claims this penetration will become deeper. Up to the second half of the last century few adults consumed snacks. Now, in countries such as the US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil and China, products in snack form amount to up to a quarter of all calories consumed. In China, since 2000 snacking has tripled every two years (15). The results are bound to include acceleration of the displacement of traditional and well-established food systems which, when they generate adequate and varied supplies of fresh and minimally processed foods, are the basis of economical, rational, appropriate, and healthy dietary patterns. (See Box 1).
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
144
Centre aisles in supermarkets. Reformulated products remain ultra-processed. Fatty salty snacks like chips (crisps) and sugared soft drinks may be reformulated and marketed as if they are healthy Much discussion about reformulation seems to assume or imply that manipulation of the ingredients of food products will make them healthy. This is not so. It is ultraprocessed products, which are principally formulations of industrial ingredients, that are reformulated (15,16). Reformulated products still contain little if any whole food. However modified or recombined, they are still almost all processed fats or oils, and/or sugars or syrups, and/or starch or starchy material, with other processed ingredients, salt, preservatives, and other including cosmetic additives. (See Box 2).
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
145
Oreos are the biggest selling cookie in the USA. They come in many varieties. Classics include the Double Stuf (left). Healthy tastes are accommodates by reformulated lower fat or sugar free versions When some reduction in the amounts of fats, saturated fats, sugars or salt is made, the products still contain little if any whole food. They remain energy-dense. They remain fatty, sugary or salty, are still formulated from cheap ingredients, and remain ultra-processed. The same is true when synthetic or other micronutrients or bioactive compounds are added. Ultra-processed products are not simply another type of processed food product. Processed products like tinned fish or fruit, say, or ham or smoked fish, are recognisable as foods modified by processing. Ultra-processed products may have some food in them but are formulations of industrial ingredients. This means that they can be, and are, formulated in all sorts of ways. Take the Oreo cookie (above). Invented a century ago, over 50 billion Oreos have been eaten, and it is now a $1 billion a year seller for Mondelz (formerly Kraft) the third biggest transnational food product manufacturer. Once upon a time there was the classic Oreo. Varieties now include the Strawberry Milkshake, the Blueberry Ice Cream, the Banana Split, the Double Delight, the Birthday Cake, and maybe up to 50 others, including the Oreo equivalent of the Big Woppa, the Double Stuf (above left). Usually Oreos are about 75 per cent fat and sugar. But they can be readily reformulated to be reduced fat (above, middle), and also sugar free (above middle). Their formulation and ratios of fat and sugar is infinitely manipulable, as are the formulations of countless other ultra-processed products. So if sugar (in the form of sucrose) comes out of the sugar-free Oreo, what goes into it instead? Its ingredients in order of amount, are maltitol (a polyol of sugar alcohol made by hydrogenation of maltose), unbleached enriched flour (wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), canola oil and/or palm oil, polydextrose, cocoa (processed with alkali), cornstarch, glycerin, inulin, emulsifiers (vegetable mono-and diglycerides, soy lecithin), baking soda and-or sodium acid pyrophosphate and-or calcium phosphate), salt, dextrose, natural and artificial flavour, cellulose gum and gel, chocolate, heavy cream, acesulfame potassium and sucralose (sweeteners). In other words, the sugar (sucrose) is replaced with a non-sucrose type of sugar, extra flour, starch, bulkers and gums, and chemical sweeteners. The sugar-free Oreo is roughly as energy-dense as the classic cookie and sells for twice the usual price.
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
146
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
147
148
dense fatty sugary or salty ultra-processed products and sugared or sweetened drinks. Each of them makes several or many $US billions a year profit from the manufacture and sale of their branded ultra-processed products. (See Box 4). Leading Big Snack corporations have pooled their common interests into the Intemational Food and Beverage Alliance, with offices perhaps unsurprisingly in Washington DC. In its March 2011 Five Commitments to Action (30), as updated on its website by August 2012, the first commitment of the IFBA is to reformulate products and develop new products that support the goals of improving diets and the fifth is to actively support public-private partnerships that support the WHOs Global Strategy. IFBA members include Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Co, Kraft, Kelloggs, General Mills, Mars, Nestle and Unilever. Why is Big Snack accepted as the principal private partner in policy-making at the highest level, designed to prevent obesity and related chronic diseases of which their products are a leading cause? In common with other colleagues, we have been asking representatives of the public sector this question in print, meetings and conferences, since the beginning of this century. We are still waiting for an answer.
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
149
150
Product reformulation is a type of new product development, with sanction to make health or medical claims, as with anti-cholesterol breakfast cereals and margarines. Sometimes these may go too far In part this is a damage limitation exercise designed to neutralise health professional, civil society and other public interest organisations, and to circumvent the duty of governments to regulate harmful commodities. But there is a context. Food manufacturers have been reformulating their products for decades, so as to be able to imply or make health or medical claims. Reformulation is simply one type of new product development, without the risk and expense of launching a new brand. Retooling existing brands as health foods, or even as functional foods that will protect against, prevent and even treat disease, is a bonanza. Breakfast cereals and margarine (above, left and right) are examples. Sometimes, as with the yoghurt above claimed to boost immunity, these go too far and are prohibited by regulators. Manufacturers love product reformulation. It is a giant leap forward in new product development. We are going through a revolution in food says Thomas Pirko of Bevmark Consulting, the Californian company which advises governments, the chief executive officers and chief financial officers of the worlds top food and beverage companies, including Coca-Cola and Kraft. It's a whole new consciousness every product has to be adding to your health or preventing you from getting sick (39). One example is the US-based General Mills (GM), very big in ready-to-consume breakfast cereals (40-42). Two-thirds of its products by sales have been reformulated since 2005. These include its Big G breakfast cereal range, Honey Nut Cheerios (see above, left), Lucky Charms, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, and Cheerios. Mark Belton, GM executive in charge of global strategy, growth and marketing innovation, says: Health improvements have increasingly become a primary driver of our innovation, so we are careful to balance strong health benefits and health improvements with great taste (43). Like other breakfast cereals, the GM range is fortified with a lot of added minerals and synthetic vitamins. Children and their parents are also taken into account. In 2009 GM agreed to reformulate cereals promoted to children under 12, so as to contain single-digit grams of sugar per serving. This policy is also much the same as that of other corporations in the business of manufacturing breakfast cereals. Accordingly in 2012, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Cookie Crisp and Cookie Crisp Sprinkles were reformulated to contain not 10 but 9 grams per serving. At either level roughly one-third of the weight of the products is added sugar.
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
151
Many parents share concerns of health professionals on the amount of sugar in breakfast cereals formulated for children. Here, Zac Hemmerling shows the trouble with Froot Loops Froot Loops were formulated by Kelloggs in 1963. They feature Toucan Sam and are aimed at children. They are one of the 10 blockbuster top sellers, most aimed at children. The loops, made from extruded flour and sugar plus the ingredients below, come in red, yellow, orange, green, purple, blue, pink and gold colours and in banana, blueberry, lemon, marshmallow, orange and strawberry flavours (these vary in different countries). The colours and flavours are all artificial. About 40 per cent of the weight of the standard product is sugar. One ingredients list of a variety promoted as being a good source of dietary fibre (as above) is of 30 items plus unspecified flavours: Whole grain corn flour, sugar, wheat flour, oat flour, oat fibre, soluble corn fibre, salt (listed as sodium chloride), partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (so the product contains trans fats, although the nutrition label lists 0 trans fats), coconut oil, soybean oil, cottonseed oil, vitamin C, nicotinamide, F&DC red 40 (a chemical colour), lemon, cherry, raspberry, natural blueberry flavour (the word flavour applies to all names of fruits), lime, natural flavours, F&DC blue 2, turmeric. F&DC yellow 6, zinc oxide, annatto, vitamin B6, vitamin B1, vitamin A, butylated hydoxytoluene (giving the product a shelf-life of a year), folic acid, vitamin D. The total global breakfast cereals market is currently turning over $US 30 billion a year. Average profit to the manufacturer of breakfast cereals is about 40-50 per cent, not far off the profitability of pharmaceuticals. In the US sales of Froot Loops for the year mid 20122013 were $US 176,349,800. At an average price of around $US 4.50 a standard package of around 350 grams, that makes something like 40 million boxes each containing 12 30 gram servings, which makes 480 million servings a year in the US one and a half servings for everybody in the US. Given that of each 100 grams of cereal, 40 grams is sugar, a reduction of 30 per cent would amount to an overall reduction in the US of around 4,000 million grams or 4,000 tonnes a year. Just from one brand of cereal in one country. Big numbers. At a wild guess, if Froot Loops represents 5 per cent of the sugary breakfast cereal market and if the US currently represents say 20 per cent of the global market, factored up this would amount to a reduction of around a 400,000 tonnes a year, or something like 0.25 per cent of the total annual world sugar production of around 160 million tonnes. Very big numbers. Advocates of products reformulated so as to contain less sugar may not always be aware of the consequences. Froot Loops are the case study here because they do have a reduced sugar variety, and to contents of the product, and the consequences, are known .
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
152
For over ten years Froot Loops have been marketed in reduced sugar (left) or one-third less sugar (centre, right) versions. So have other sugary breakfast cereals aimed at children Since 2003 Froot Loops, like other intensely sugared breakfast cereals, have a variety formulated to contain less sugar, as shown above (left). A one third less sugar version is also in the centre of the supermarket aisle (right). The reduced sugar versions of Froot Loops add refined starchy carbohydrates, so the product contains the same amount of calories. Some manufacturers add chemical sweeteners and charge more. The version above makes a series of implied health claims. The banners say Excellent source of vitamin C, Multi-grain, 11 vitamins and minerals (which are synthetic), Natural fruit flavours (meaning artificial but nature-identical), and No artificial sweeteners. As explained on the Kelloggs website: Sugar in cereals including kids cereals contribute less than 5 percent of daily sugar intake. Yet it adds taste, texture and enjoyment to cereal, while encouraging the consumption of fiber, vitamins and minerals (45). The reduced sugar varieties were analysed and no benefit was identified. You're supposed to think it's healthy," said Marion Nestle, nutrition professor at New York University. "This is about marketing. It is about nothing else. It is not about kids' health." (46) The benefit is to the manufacturers. In their first year on the market, sales of reduced sugar sugary breakfast cereals increased by 50 per cent, obviously because parents thought they are healthy, which they are not. Worse, because of the bran and synthetic vitamins and minerals in them, the nutrient profile of Froot Loops qualified for a US Smart Choices seal of approval, (see below), devised with industry by a consortium of nutrition professors and the American Society of Nutrition, but later withdrawn after a storm of protest and ridicule (47). Worse yet, if products like this that imply or state health claims, are marketed aggressively in the global South, they will rapidly displace traditional healthy breakfast dishes.
In the US, Froot Loops were given a industry-funded quasi-official Smart Choices seal of approval, because their nutrient profile ticks the boxes This tick was later withdrawn
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
153
In the US, products invented or reformulated to contain no sugar are power brands. These include designer waters like zero Vitaminwater (left) worldwide and zero cola here in Japan (right) Almost all interest in processed product reformulation comes from the global North. Here, the North is taken to mean the high-income mature market economies of North America, Europe and some other countries, and the South is taken to mean the middle- and low-income emerging market economies of Asia, Africa, Latin America and some other regions and countries. This is a rough classification: some regions in the North still retain traditional food systems. But almost all analysis of the significance of product reformulation is of its impact on the health of fully industrialised populations in the global North. Any such analysis assumes that what goes for the North applies globally and therefore also to the South. It does not. The circumstances of most countries in the North are very different from those of most regions and countries in the South. High-income countries generally became economically developed a long time ago. Two examples are the US and the UK. As a result of industrialisation, urbanisation, and the displacement of indigenous and rural populations, previously long-established and traditional food systems and culinary and dietary traditions have been pushed into niches or even practically vanished, to be evoked nostalgically at Thanksgiving, Christmas, and other feast-times. Consequently, for generations now, a high proportion of the food purchased and consumed by most people has been in the form of products that are ready-toconsume. Preliminary research of food consumption trends indicates that the food supplies of mature market economies such as those of the US, Canada and the UK may now be saturated with these ultra-processed products, with little scope for further increase, at a consistent average national level of over 60 per cent of total energy (48,49). In such countries obesity was already identified as a public health problem by the 1970s, and rates have accelerated since the 1980s. In the US, population prevalence of obesity is around one-third, and of overweight and obesity combined is about two-thirds (50). In the UK and Canada, prevalence of obesity is close to one-quarter of the population, and of overweight and obesity combined, just over three-fifths (51,52).
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
154
155
Ultra-processed products have deeply penetrated Asia, Africa and Latin America. Here are a floating supermarket from Nestl in Amazonia (left) and a Pepsi shop hoarding in India (right) We now turn to the global South. Here is what WHO director-general Margaret Chan has said: Today, many of the threats to health that contribute to noncommunicable diseases come from corporations that are big, rich and powerful, driven by commercial interests, and far less friendly to health. Here is a question I would like to ask the food and beverage industries. Does it really serve your interests to produce, market, globally distribute, and aggressively advertise, especially to children, products that damage the health of your customers? Does this make sense in any mission statement with a social purpose? (58).
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
156
157
than conventional equivalents of the same brands or types of product, but generally more expensive weight for weight. Nestls 2012 first half-year report stated that in Asia, Oceania and Africa, sales of about $US 9.5 billion were achieved, with growth at an annual rate of 11.6 per cent. The Zone continued to post double-digit growth The main drivers were brand investment and product innovation, deeper and wider distribution with a multi-tier strategy from popularly positioned products to premiumisation, while investing in capacity and capabilities for future growth The emerging markets delivered double-digit growth most notably in Greater China, Africa, and the Middle East Our new partnerships are enhancing significantly our footprint in China (64). Unilever globally is the worlds second largest food manufacturer, specialising in high-fat products such as margarine, ice-cream, sauces and pot noodles. In 2013 chief executive Paul Polman said Emerging markets again contributed double-digit growth, helping us to exceed 50 billion annual turnover, an important milestone in our journey to double the size of Unilever from 40 billion to 80 billion (14).
systems, involving cultures in which meals, commensality, and family life are valued and preserved, persist to varying extents. These countries are now the prime targets of transnational corporations. If these industries reformulate and consequently aggressively advertise and promote some of their apparently less unhealthy products as healthy, sometimes even with quasi-medicinal claims, this is certain to accelerate the increase of consumption of ultra-processed products overall. The Big Food corporations want to teach the world to snack, from birth to death. Their main initial competition is from relatively weak in the countries they enter, which they often take over. They displace existing food systems that generate meals
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
158
made with fresh and minimally processed foods and processed culinary ingredients (17, 29, 53), and replace these with relatively expensive branded energy-dense fatty, sugary or salty ultra-processed products. The social, economic and environmental consequences, as well as the impact on health, are devastating. Ultra-processed products undermine healthy eating patterns that are structured and centred on shared meals, by irregular mindless snacking. They destroy authentic food culture which is a source of pleasure and social identity. The strategy of the transnationals is already eroding and eventually threatens to destroy appropriate, economical and sustainable dietary patterns in most parts of the world. Given this, rates of obesity, and of diabetes and other chronic non-communicable diseases, are liable to accelerate. Neoliberalism, also known as casino capitalism, devised for the benefit of the global North, is often embraced in the South by government departments of finance, trade and industry, and external affairs. The destructive effects of free trade on health, economies and the environment are as yet not fully discerned. Until then, the economies of lower-income nations will become more fragile, and increasingly dependent on foreign capital and fluctuations of the money and commodity markets. Deeper penetration of transnational corporations is liable eventually to destroy much of the social, cultural and other identity of countries in the global South. From a global perspective, we judge that reformulated products manufactured by huge transnational corporations, aggressively marketed with health claims, will cause increased harm to public health, and to public goods, throughout the world.
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
159
Reformulation is of formulated products. These are ultra-processed. They are energydense. They combine fats and oils, sugars and syrups, starches and flours, salt, preservatives, and other including cosmetic additives, with small amounts if any of whole foods. Modification of their nutrient profile, by reducing sugars or syrups and replacing these with processed oils, starches or artificial sweeteners, or by reducing some salt, or by replacing fats with sugars, or adding dietary fibre or synthetic micronutrients, makes the products at best only somewhat less unhealthy.
Much and perhaps most influential policy-making supposed to improve the state of public health nutrition, and to reduce and control obesity and chronic noncommunicable diseases, is done in public-private partnerships. These are mostly or solely restricted to international and national government and other officials, and executives usually from the marketing or publicity divisions of transnational corporations. As a prime part of these policies, the transnational and other giant ultra-processed product manufacturers, and their representative, associated and supportive organisations, devise product reformulation strategies that suit their business, and protect or enhance their profits. A main purpose is to evade effective statutory regulation of industry such as that which makes tobacco and alcohol products less available and affordable. They are a damage limitation exercise.
Reformulation is a massive new product development opportunity. It sanctions explicit or implicit claims on product labelling and promotion, accepted or tolerated by regulatory authorities. Such health or medical claims state or imply that the reformulated products are healthy, in general or in some specific way. They seem to transform what remain unhealthy products into functional foods with powers to prevent or even treat disease. While legal, the claims are deceptive. They also lead to increased sales often of premium priced products by incautious, credulous or vulnerable customers, and often by parents anxious to protect the health of their children and thus likely to purchase products they cannot afford.
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
160
Cigarette manufacturers reformulated their products to low-tar varieties, to stop smokers quitting. Big Food transnational manufacturing corporations now use comparable strategies There is no sensible comparison between tobacco and food as a whole. We need food and should be able to enjoy it and retain good health and well-being. Cigarettes and other tobacco products are also different from unhealthy ultra-processed food and drink products. Tobacco is intensely toxic and addictive, and rational advice is not to smoke and to avoid exposure to smoke, whereas occasional or moderate consumption of ultra-processed products is usually harmless. But there are similarities between the strategies of ultraprocessed food product and cigarette reformulation (67), in effect even if not in intention. Starting in the 1950s, Big Tobacco (the industry leaders) was confronted by strong and then overwhelming evidence of the harm done by smoking, and also by increasingly militant health professional and civil society organisations. In response, tobacco corporations began to promote filtered cigarettes, which by the 1960s were the market leaders. They then formulated and heavily promoted low tar, light or mild cigarettes: between 1967 and 2005 the market share of these products rose from 2 to 83.5 per cent. Manufacturers insinuated in advertising and promotion, often using attractive models as shown above, that these reformulated products were harmless. Evidence accepted as final proof that reformulation of cigarettes does not make them less harmful, was published a generation later, in 1991 (68). The strategy of Big Food and Big Snack, to reformulate some of their ultra-processed products, and to claim that the new products are healthy, is a distraction from effective public health measures. In this and other respects it is comparable with the low-tar cigarette strategy.
Almost all discussion of reformulation takes place in the context of developed market economies such as in North America and Western Europe, and other countries whose food supplies may already be close to saturation with ultraprocessed products. Reformulation may be of some limited benefit to human health in such countries, if it results in lower consumption of fat, saturated fat, added sugars
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
161
or salt, and if these reductions are not accompanied by increases in other unhealthy items, and if the only change customers make is from old products to the newly developed products. But notice the ifs. Sales of reformulated products, once positioned as healthy, are likely to be maintained or increase, or be additional to sales of the previous products.
Transnational food and drink manufacturers are mainly in the ultra-processed product business. Some now aim for double-digit annual growth in the emerging markets notably of Asia, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. Transnationals have already reduced fat, sugar or salt content of many of their products, or added synthetic micronutrients, often making strong health claims for these premium products, including in countries whose regulatory authorities are under-resourced. This will lead to an increased rate of displacement of traditional and long-established food systems and dietary patterns centred on meals, by ultra-processed snacks and drinks that remain energy-dense, fatty, sugary or salty. Allowing reformulated products to make health claims will thus cause a steeper increase in rates of overweight, and obesity and related diseases.
Reformulation distracts attention from really effective policies and programmes. This diversion, similar to that used by Big Tobacco, is part of corporate strategy. From the public health point of view, any possible beneficial changes consequent on product reformulation would be very small relative to what could be achieved by fiscal and other statutory regulation. These should assure food supplies higher in fresh and minimally processed foods, preserve national agricultural ecosystems and biodiversity, make agriculture a viable social and economic activity, support local food traditions, promote cooking in urban settings starting in schools, and limit availability of ultra-processed products.
National governments, UN and other international organisations, and other independent actors, should develop statutory policies and actions to prevent and control obesity and chronic non-communicable diseases and to promote positive health and well-being. Transnational and other corporations whose profits depend on the sale of unhealthy products should not be involved in the formulation of these policies and programmes. Overall public health strategies should include very substantial investment in healthy food systems and supplies, and an end to the promotion of any type of ultra-processed products as if they were healthy. Explicit or suggested health claims for reformulated products should be prohibited.
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
162
Conclusion
Here are five suppositions. Suppose that most people in most countries were overweight and obese. Suppose that practically all regions and countries were fully industrialised, with food systems concentrated in the hands of huge industrial corporations. Suppose that these industries made radical changes in the formulation of their products, in the context of general diversification base their businesses on fresh and minimally processed foods. Suppose that most people in most countries were willing and able to afford new formulations and products, and chose these products, even when they were more expensive. Suppose that all the most powerful institutions, governments and corporations in the world were genuinely committed to the preservation, development and creation of food systems based on fresh and minimally processed foods, and that reformulation of processed products was just one aspect of such a grand plan. If all this was true, product reformulation would make a real difference. But of course none of these suppositions is true. Food and drink product reformulation will not improve public health. It is relatively harmful when, as now, it is a distraction, used in place of more effective strategies involving the rational use of statutory regulations. It is absolutely harmful when it is a new form of exploitation, where advertising and marketing of reformulated branded snack and other convenience products that make or imply health claims, accelerate the erosion and displacement of established appropriate and economical food systems and dietary patterns based on meals. In the South, long-established traditional food systems result in dietary patterns that are culturally appropriate, environmentally sound, economically sensible, climatically rational, able to sustain rural populations, and which are well understood by settled populations. These are now in danger of being wiped out by the incursion of ultraprocessed products. This catastrophe can only be made worse by products marketed as if they are healthy. Everybody professionally or personally concerned with the preservation and protection of public health, including leaders in government and public interest organisations, should give first and foremost priority to the promotion of healthy food systems and supplies, to include recognition and support of healthy meals, dishes and foods. This should include close collaboration and partnership with representatives of those sectors of industry that now or potentially are in the business of healthy food which is also good for society and the environment. These do not include Big Food or Big Snack, the transnational manufacturers of ultra-processed products. Their overall strategy is in effect to teach the world to snack their branded ready-to-consume products, throughout life (9). This process is being accelerated by the formulation and promotion of ultra-processed products that make or imply health claims.
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
163
References
1 He FJ, Li J, MacGregor GA. Effect of longer term modest salt reduction on blood pressure: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2013;346:f1325 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1325. Aburto NJ, Ziolkovska A, Hooper L, Elliott P, Cappuccio FP, Meerpohl JJ. Effect of lower sodium intake on health: systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ 2013;346:f1326 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1326 Department of Health: Assessment of Dietary Sodium Levels Among Adults (aged 19-64) in England, 2011. http://transparency.dh.gov.uk/2012/06/21/sodiumlevels-among-adults/. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guidance on the prevention of cardiovascular disease. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/PH25. Ofcom, Office of Communications. Impact assessment. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/foodads_new/ia.pdf. Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C et al.. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultraprocessed food and drink industries. Lancet 12 February 2013; 381: 670679. http://dx.doi.org /10.1016/S01406736(12)62089-3 Anon. Sugar, salt and fat reduction. Food Navigator, 18 September 2012. http://www.foodnavigator.com/On-your-radar/Sugar-salt-and-fat-reduction/325 Campbell D. Giant food firms fail to back battle against obesity. The Guardian, 18 March 2012. Kraak V. Food supplies. Trans-fats. Government policies and actions to protect citizen health. [Commentary].World Nutrition, August 2012, 3, 8, 337-357. Jacoby E, Rivera J, Cordera S, Gomes F, Garnier L, Castillo C, Reyes M. Legislation, children, obesity. Standing up for childrens rights in Latin America. World Nutrition November 2012, 3, 11, 483-516. Guthrie A. Junk food feels the heat in Latin America. Wall Street Journal, 29 December 2013. Friedman M. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Ethical Theory and Business. Sixth edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2004. Nestl. First half 2012: steady momentum, full-year outlook confirmed. Report for investors. Vevey: Nestl, 9 August 2012 Pendrous N. Emerging markets boost Unilever sales. Food Manufacture, 6 February 2013. http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Business-News/Emerging-marketsboost-Unilever-sales Monteiro CA, Moubarac JC, Cannon G, Ng SW, Popkin B. Ultra-processed products are becoming dominant in the global food system. Obesity Reviews 2013; 14 Suppl 2: 21-28. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Levy RB, Claro RM, Moubarac J-C. The Food System. Processing. The big issue for disease, good health, well-being. World Nutrition 2012; 3 (12): 527-569. Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The impact of transnational big food companies on the South: a view from Brazil. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001252. Stuckler D, Nestl M. Big food, food systems, and global health. PLoS Medicione 2012; 9: e1001242.
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
15
16
17 18
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
164
World Nutrition Volume 5, Number 2, February 2014 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ludwig DS. Technology, diet, and the burden of chronic disease. Journal of the American Medical Association 2011; 305: 13521353. Cannon G. Food addiction. Cookie crunching [Updates]. World Nutrition May 2013, 4, 5, 227-230. Blanestijn J. Reformulation, reduction of sugar, salt, fat content. Zeist, Netherlands: TNO, August 2012. Brownell K, Gold M (eds). Food and Addiction: A Comprehensive Handbook. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Moss M. Salt Sugar Fat. How the Food Giants Hooked Us. New York: Random House, 2013. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Fats and Fatty Acids in Human Nutrition. FAO food and nutrition paper 91. Rome: FAO, 2010. Mozaffarian D, Katan MB, Ascherio A, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Trans fatty acids and cardiovascular disease. New England Journal of Medicine 2006; 354 (15): 16011613. doi:10.1056/NEJMra054035. PMID 16611951 Monteiro C. The big issue is ultra-processing. The hydrogenation bomb. [Commentary] World Nutrition April 2011, 2, 4: 176-194.. Scrinis G. Nuritionism. Hydrogenation. Butter, margarine and the trans-fat fiasco. [Commentary]. World Nutrition January 2014, 5, 1, 33-63. UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Agricultural Co-operatives. Key to Feeding the World. Rome: FAO, 2012. Monteiro C, Gomes F, Cannon G. Can the food industry help tackle the growing burden of under-nutrition? The snack attack. American Journal of Public Health 2010, 100: 975-981. The International Food and Beverage Alliance. Five Commitments in support of the World Health Organizations 2004 Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. The Transnational Institute. www.tni.org Madeley J. Transnational Corporations. ec.europa.eu/development/body/ publications/courier/courier196/en_036_ni.pdf Anon. Down from the NCD Summit. Wagging the world: Public-private partnerships. World Public Health Nutrition Association website, November 2011. Gomes F. Big Food Watch. Words for our sponsors. [Commentary]. World Nutrition October-December 2013, 4, 8, 618-644. Simon M. Eat Drink Politics. And Now a Word from our Sponsors. Are Americas Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food. January 2013. World Health Organization/ World Economic Forum. From Burden to Best Buys. Reducing the Economic Impact of Non-Communicable Diseases in Low and Middle-Income Countries. Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2011 HM Government. The Governments Alcohol Strategy. London: Home Department, March 2012. . World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Alcohol. Geneva: WHO, 2004. Herper M. Snake oil in your snacks. Forbes Magazine, 19 May 2010 Kelloggs. Brands you love. Foods that delight. 2011 annual report. http://www.annualreport2011.kelloggcompany.com/pdfs/KELLOGG_11AR.pdf Nestl. The worlds leading nutrition, health and wellness company. 2011 annual report. http://www.nestle.com/Media_Center/Interactive_ AR_2011/index.html General Mills. A portfolio for global growth. Annual report 2011. http://generalmills.com/~/media/Files/2011_annual_report.
26 27 28 29
30 31 32 33 34 35 36
37 38 39 40 41 42
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
165
World Nutrition Volume 5, Number 2, February 2014 43 44 45 46 47 48 Scott-Thomas C. General Mills says health has become a primary driver of innovation. Food Navigator, 22 August 2012. Cullinay K. Cereal blockbusters. Americas top 10 best-selling brands. Food Navigator, 22 July 2013. Kelloggs. Putting sugar in perspective. http://www.kelloggs.com/en_US/thebenefits-of-cereal/Putting-Sugar-in-Perspective.html Crowe L. Experts say no advantage to reduced-sugar cereals. USA Today, 21 March 2003. Neuman W. For your health, Froot Loops. New York Times, 4 September 2009 Moubarac J-C, Martins APB, Claro RM et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health. Evidence from Canada. Public Health Nutrition 2012; 21: 19. doi:10.1017/S1368980012005009. Moubarac J-C, Claro R, Baraldi L, Martins AP, Levy R, Cannon G, et al. International differences in cost and consumption of ready-to-consume food and drink products: United Kingdom and Brazil, 2008-2009. Global Public Health. 2013; 8(7):245-256. Flegal K, Carroll M. Ogden C, Curtin L. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults 1999-2008. Journal of the American Medical Association 2010, 303, 3, 235-241. NHS Information Centre. Statistics on obesity, physical activity and diet. England 2011. http://www.aso.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/ 2011/04/ StatisticsonObesityPhysicalActivityandDietEngland2011.pdf The Public Health Agency of Canada. Obesity in Canada: A joint report. PHAC/CIHI, 2011. Stuckler D, McKee M, Ebrahim S, Basu S. Manufacturing epidemics: The role of global producers in increased consumption of unhealthy commodities including processed foods, alcohol, and tobacco PLoS Medicine 9(7): e1001235 .doi:10.1371/ journal.pmed.1001252. Published 26 June 2012. Kleiman S, Ng SW, Popkin B. Drinking to our health: can beverage companies cut calories while maintaining profits? Obesity Reviews 2012, 13 (3): 258-74. Tate DF, Turner-McGrievy G, Lyons E, et al. Replacing caloric beverages with water or diet beverages for weight loss in adults: main results of the Choose Healthy Options Consciously Everyday (CHOICE) randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Clunical Nutrition 2012, 95 (3): 555-63. Kavilanz P. Coke expects more weakness at home in 07. Fortune. 17 April 2007 Esterl M. Coke ready to share cash, not blame. Wall Street Journal, 18 June 2012. Chan M. The rise of chronic non-communicable diseases: an impending disaster. Addressing the Challenge of Noncommunicable Diseases. 27 April 2011 http:// www.who .int/dg/speeches/2011/ global_forum ncd_20110427/en/index.html Smith A. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: W Strachan and T Cadell, 1776. Collated edition ed Cannan E, London: Methuen, 1906. Recent edition ed Sutherland K. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Zhang M. Coca-Colas Q2 earnings preview: Profits rise on thirsty emerging markets. International Business Times, 16 July 2012. Coca-Cola press kit. Coca-Cola continues strong investment in China with opening of 42nd bottling facility. 29 March 2012. Nestl press release. Popularly positioned products. 28 November 2011. http://www.nestle.com/csv/CreatingSharedValueCaseStudies/AllCaseStudies/Page s/PPP-Popularly-PositionedProducts.aspx.
49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57 58
59
60 61 62
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
166
World Nutrition Volume 5, Number 2, February 2014 63 64 Nestl. Popularly positioned products. Vevey: Nestl, 2011. Nestl press release. First half 2012: steady momentum, full-year outlook confirmed. 9 August 2011. http://www.nestle.com/Media /Press Releases/ Pages/AllPressRelease. aspx?PageId=296. Monteiro C, Levy R, Claro R, Castro I, Cannon G. Increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health: evidence from Brazil. Public Health Nutrition 2011, 14, 1: 5-13. Schmidt MI, Duncan BB, Silva GA, Menezes AM, Monteiro CA, Barreto SM, CHor D, Menezes PR. Chronic non-communicable diseases in Brazil: burden and current challenges. The Lancet 4 June 2011, 377, 9781, 1949-1961 DOI: 10.1016/S01406736(11)60135-9. Brownell K, Warner K. The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food? The Milbank Quarterly 2009; 87,1, 259294. National Cancer Institute. Risks Associated with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph Series. Bethesda MD: NCI, 2001
65
66
67 68
Status
Concept, drafting and final text approval: CAM, GC. Funding for this commentary: none. Conflicting or competing interests: none declared. Work on The Food System and specifically on the significance of food processing, is originated at the Centre for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition (NUPENS), School of Public Health, University of So Paulo (USP). Members of NUPENS team include Renata Bertazzi Levy, Rafael Claro, Jean-Claude Moubarac, Ana Paula Martins, Maria Laura Louzada, Larissa Baraldi, Daniela Canella. Readers may make use of the material in this paper if acknowledgement is given to the Association, and WN is cited. Cite as: Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Ultraprocessed products. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary]. World Nutrition, February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168. All WN contributions are obtainable at www.wphna.org. World Nutrition commentaries are reviewed internally or by invitation. All contributions to World Nutrition are the responsibility of their authors. They should not be taken to be the view or policy of the World Public Health Nutrition Association (the Association) or of any of its affiliated or associated bodies, unless this is explicitly stated.
How to respond
Please address letters for publication to wn.letters@gmail.com. Letters should usually respond to or comment on contributions to World Nutrition. More general letters will also be considered. Usual length for main text of letters is between 250 and 850 words. Any references should usually be limited to up to 10. Letters are edited for length and style, may also be developed, and once edited are sent to the author for approval.
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
167
This commentary continues the series begun in World Nutrition and elsewhere, as referenced above. The overall theme of the series is the global industrial food system, its significance, and its impact on dietary patterns, health and well-being, food culture, public policies, society, economies, the environment, and the biosphere, in the past, now, and for this century. Future contributions will be looking at various aspects of the food system as the big issue for nutrition. Contributions published in WN so far have mostly been concerned with food processing, and what happens to food and to us as a result of different types of processing. We have focused on ultra-processed products, as we do here. We identify these as the main dietary cause and explanation of what is now uncontrolled pandemic obesity and related chronic non-communicable diseases.
NOVA
Our thesis derives from NOVA, a wholly new food classification. This replaces all those that divide foods into conventional groups (such as cereals and cereal products, meat and meat products). Instead, we identify industrial processing as the crucial determinant of food and diet quality, the risk of disease, and prospects of good health and well-being. In our system, Group 1 is of fresh and minimally processed foods. Group 2 is of processed culinary ingredients. These are combined and made into meals, as symbolised above by the full cooking pot. Group 3 is of ready-to-consume products. Most of these are ultra-processed, as symbolised above by the cheese-bacon-burger.
Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The Food System. Product reformulation will not improve public health. [Commentary] World Nutrition February 2014, 5, 2, 140-168
168